mvince, soccer and men's lax are 10 + goalie = 11. Wlax is currently 11 + goalie = 12. When we say take it down to 10 we mean 10 field players for a total of 11, as is done in the UWLX. So you were already on the same page, just a matter of semantics.

Backstreets wrote:Every time that player started a cut, her defender, knowing she couldn't stay with her, gave her a sharp cross check to the upper arm, which neutralized her first step. Never called.

Unless there was an extension of the defender's arms after the point of contact, that sounds like good defense. The best (only?) way to neutralize an off-ball threat is to jam her cut before she gets inside. Women's lacrosse is an attackers' game and defenders need to be allowed to make controlled contact to do their jobs, even if that means bruises.

laxallnite wrote:mvince, soccer and men's lax are 10 + goalie = 11. Wlax is currently 11 + goalie = 12. When we say take it down to 10 we mean 10 field players for a total of 11, as is done in the UWLX. So you were already on the same page, just a matter of semantics.

Backstreets wrote:Every time that player started a cut, her defender, knowing she couldn't stay with her, gave her a sharp cross check to the upper arm, which neutralized her first step. Never called.

Unless there was an extension of the defender's arms after the point of contact, that sounds like good defense. The best (only?) way to neutralize an off-ball threat is to jam her cut before she gets inside. Women's lacrosse is an attackers' game and defenders need to be allowed to make controlled contact to do their jobs, even if that means bruises.

Men's lacrosse has 9 field players and a goalie. 3 attack, 3 midfielders and 3 defenders.

Really good NYT article about the safety aspect, but to those of us who understand the game, it fails on three major points:

1. There is no data to back up the idea that helmets actually reduce head injuries. It just doesn't exist. Maybe in a few years it will, but right now it doesn't. So when you really think about what the article is rooted in... there's not a whole lot of substance.

2. It seems to reach the conclusion that helmets don't change the way the players play, based one season of a handful of teams in NYC and upstate NY, and no quote from anyone in the Florida region. That doesn't mean anything regarding how helmets would change the game at the college level. You combine bigger, stronger, smarter, more skilled, more competitive and more invested athletes with more innovative coaches and you will see a difference. Which brings me to point 3:

3.The article purely examines the safety aspect and doesn't really look at how helmets would actually change the game, beyond the (brief) quotes from Karin Corbett and Acacia Walker. Mandating helmets would cause a cascade of tactical changes and ensuing rule changes that would almost inevitably lead to more equipment. For example, one thing I think would become much more prevalent (that I'm curious why it hasn't been brought up yet and I would love thoughts from others) is an increase in dangerous shots. We would see this because A) defensive players would be less weary about putting themselves in a vulnerable position and thus would be more willing to slide up through shooting space, B) coaches would be less weary about putting defenders in said vulnerable positions and we would see more defensive schemes that placed less emphasis on staying out of shooting space, and C) offensive players would worry less about hitting someone who has a helmet on. With the athletes on the field today and the recent changes in stick technology, women are shooting harder than ever, but these hard shots from distance are also more accurate than ever—which is part of what led to the new and-one type rule allowing goals to count if the shot is on the whistle. But at the end of the day, it's only safe to stand in front of a lacrosse ball if you're wearing a real (not soft) helmet with a full face mask and shoulder pads to protect your chest. There's a reason men wear the equipment they do, and it's not all about hitting and checking.

As someone who grew up playing football, ice hockey and lacrosse - I never once got a concussion because of the mandatory helmet rules in all those sports. Nope, no concussions - I just had my clock cleaned a few times, was woozy, had the dizziness and headaches. But, in college I was able to drink most of that away and assume a different sort of fogginess. So, I think those studies are spot on that helmets do prevent concussions. All that was just part of the game and I had to man up.

Chaotic but fun to watch!! I'm a big fan of free movement—it'll get less chaotic. Sydney Watson was terrific for UConn. Morgan Widner struggled. Gary showed off their depth. And yes, lots of helmets on lots of high-level players, at every position and in every class. It could be that coaches required players with any previous concussions (even just a mild one) to wear them? Regardless, it's good to see a top-tier program embracing them; hopefully Cuse will begin to normalize them so women at other programs and girls in high school can feel comfortable wearing them if they choose to. Right now I think the vast majority of DI players wouldn't even consider wearing one unless she had concussion issues. Of course, that normalization will bring us a step closer to mandatory helmets.

I agree. I think the combination of Sydney's athleticism and the new rule emphasizing hor. sticks at the draw caused Widener some problems. It seemed that she had to get lower than she wanted and was often resetting legs to try to get comfortable. I wonder if the Hor. sticks will affect other taller centers?

Change is inevitable, and it will either result in a reduced # of players, mandatory helmets, or both.Given that many head strikes come from high sticks, improved designs could help eliminate concussionsplus eye and nose injuries; and reduce injuries from high sticks to the mouth and jaw. Will some players becomemore aggressive and charge harder to the net? Probably yes. Will the number of in-close collisions likely increase?Also, probably yes. But the question is, is it worth reducing head injuries at the risk of increasing injuries belowthe collar bone? Once again, probably yes. A bruised shoulder is certainly preferable to a brain or facial injury.A few years from now it's likely that we look back to the use of helmets as a "no brainer". What are we waiting for?

holmes435 wrote:"I think the quote from Taylor Gait says it all: "... You don’t get scared when you dodge in. You play with more confidence. And I’m not nervous that I’m gonna get hurt."

You're going to see top level teams quickly adopt them to give their kids a physical and mental advantage. You'll see more attackers dodging into traffic without regard for their safety.

I certainly hope they don't get hurt. I'd rather add another ref and call the rules that are on the books before we add helmets."

Right on the money; I had the same reaction to the Taylor Gait quote. The helmets will induce more wild driving to the cage through an already crowded Eight Meter area, more blows to the head and face, and an overall reduction in the safety of the game. We are, with every little rule change, simply arcing toward the men's game.

As a high school coach in Florida where the head gear is mandated I can tell you after a few preseason games my observations are:1. Players reckless in going to spaces to tight2. Defenders are really aggressively checking3. Refs are letting some clear checks to headgear go if player keeps her forward momentum going.Granted I have only seen four preseason games, but I suspect this will be the trend.

If helmets make the game more dangerous because refs are allowing hits to the head that they otherwise wouldn't, then we need better refs. There isn't a single rule that says an action is a foul without helmets but is OK with a helmet. All it takes is refs calling the game correctly (giving yellows every time a player swings her stick at a helmet AND calling charges on helmeted players who run people over) to avoid helmets making things worse.

Watched the Brown game today, didn't see any helmets. I guess the players decided after 2-3 weeks that they preferred not to wear them. I think that refs are going to call games much more closely (that's what I've noticed so far this season) and the idea of mandatory helmets is going to fade away. Lots of great changes to the women's game, mandatory helmets would not be one of them, imo.

Not sure if Syracuse has had a rash of concussions, but there are at least 6 girls wearing helmets this year. From the games I've seen so far, it allows them to be much more aggressive. Here's hoping officials continue to call tight games so we don't go the way of everyone wearing helmets and fundamentally moving the women's game toward the guys game.